FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

CWR: Your new book, The New Geocentrists, takes on a topic you’ve followed and addressed for many years. First, what is geocentrism? Second, when and why did you first become interested in it?

Keating: Just as heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is the center of our planetary system, so geocentrism is the theory that the Earth is the center. Geocentrism is the ancient understanding, best known in the formulation given by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy. The Ptolemaic theory was modified substantially in the sixteenth century by Tycho Brahe. Most modern geocentrists adhere to a variant of the Tychonian theory.

My interest in geocentrism goes back to my university days. I took a course in the history of science from Prof. Curtis Wilson, then and until his death in 2012 considered the top American expert on Johannes Kepler, who started out as Tycho’s assistant.

In Wilson’s course we took the ancient observational data, worked through the calculations, and discovered that, as observations became ever more precise, the Ptolemaic and Tychonian theories failed to account for the movements of the celestial bodies. It was this failure that led Kepler to develop his three laws of planetary motion, and it was this course that sparked my interest in geocentrism.

CWR: Why the need for a book-length treatment of geocentrism and its main proponents?

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

"The Theory of Everything": A God-Haunted Film | Very Rev. Robert Barron | CWR blog

Why would a scientist assume there is or is even likely to be one unifying rational form to all things, unless he assumed there is a singular, overarching intelligence that has placed it there?

The great British physicist Stephen Hawking has emerged in recent years as a poster boy for atheism, and his heroic struggles against the ravages of Lou Gehrig’s disease have made him something of a secular saint. The new bio-pic “The Theory of Everything” does indeed engage in a fair amount of Hawking-hagiography, but it is also, curiously, a God-haunted movie.

In one of the opening scenes, the young Hawking meets Jane, his future wife, in a bar and tells her that he is a cosmologist. “What’s cosmology?” she asks, and he responds, “Religion for intelligent atheists.”

“What do cosmologists worship?” she persists. And he replies, “A single unifying equation that explains everything in the universe.”

Later on, Stephen brings Jane to his family’s home for dinner and she challenges him, “You’ve never said why you don’t believe in God.” He says, “A physicist can’t allow his calculations to be muddled by belief in a supernatural creator,” to which she deliciously responds, “Sounds less of an argument against God than against physicists.”

This spirited back and forth continues throughout the film, as Hawking settles more and more into a secularist view and Jane persists in her religious belief. As Hawking’s physical condition deteriorates, Jane gives herself to his care with truly remarkable devotion, and it becomes clear that her dedication is born of her religious conviction. Though the great scientist concluded his most popular work with a reference to “knowing the mind of God,” it is obvious by the end of the film that he meant that line metaphorically.

The last bit of information that we learn, just before the credits roll, is that Professor Hawking continues his quest to find the theory of everything, that elusive equation that will explain all of reality. Do you see why I say the entire film is haunted by God?

An interview with Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ, president of the Magis Center, about faith, reason, atheism, and Stephen Hawking's "hogwash"

Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ, Ph.D., 62, is president of the Magis Center (www.magiscenter.com), headquartered in the new chancery office of the Diocese of Orange, California. The center’s goal is to demonstrate that faith and reason and science are compatible, and to combat the increasing secularization of society, particularly among young people.

Fr. Spitzer was born and reared in Honolulu, Hawaii. His father was an attorney and businessman; he was one of five children. His father was Lutheran; his mother a Catholic and daily communicant. He attended college at Jesuit-run Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, initially pursuing a career in public accounting and finance.

He went on a retreat led by Fr. Gerard Steckler, a former chaplain for Thomas Aquinas College, and “he got me very interested in theology and the Church.” He began attending daily Mass and taking classes in theology and Scripture. He bought a copy of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica from a used book store and began reading it. “I saw the solidity of faith in the light of reason,” he said, “and once that happened, I was ready to go.”

He joined the Society of Jesus in 1974, and was ordained a priest in 1983.

Fr. Spitzer is the author of several books, including Healing the Culture(Ignatius Press, 2000), Five Pillars of the Spiritual Life(Ignatius Press, 2008), New Proofs for the Existence of God(Eerdmans, 2010), and Ten Universal Principles (Ignatius Press, 2010), as well as numerous articles for scholarly journals, and has delivered hundreds of lectures. He is a teacher, and served as president of Gonzaga University from 1998 to 2009. He continues to produce an enormous volume of work despite suffering from poor eyesight throughout his adult life (he has not, for example, been able to drive a car for 30 years), which has gotten worse in recent years.

Fr. Spitzer recently spoke with CWR.

CWR: Prominent atheists often frame the debate between themselves and religious people by saying you either believe in “science”—however they may define it—or what they call the fairy tales of the Bible. What response would you offer such a viewpoint?

Fr. Spitzer: To start, I wouldn’t let them get away with saying faith and science contradict one another. We’re privileged to live in a time when there is more evidence from physics for a beginning of the universe than ever before. I made this point to [atheist scientist] Stephen Hawking in 2010, when I appeared along with him on Larry King Live. Stephen knows this. (Watch the discussion online.)

The debate centered on what was before the beginning of the universe. If you say “nothing”, then there has to be a God. You can’t move from nothing to something. Even Larry King got that. He asked another physicist on the program, Leonard Mlodinow, “How about that Leonard, how can you make something from nothing?” All Leonard could do was to equivocate on the term “nothing.”

CWR: Speaking of Stephen Hawking, he made the news recently when he officially declared himself to be an atheist. Do you find atheism widespread among the scientific community, or do a handful of atheist scientists receive a lot of publicity?

Fr. Spitzer: About 45% of working scientists are declared theists. Another vocal group, let’s say 20%, describe themselves as atheists. A third group is the agnostic naturalists. They’re not sure whether or not God exists, but they don’t what to compromise the naturalistic method by believing in God. I wouldn’t describe them as atheists.

CWR: Scientists often marvel at the intricacies of what Christians call Creation, but seem to suggest that these things developed on their own without a Designer outside the system to create them. Do many scientists have blinders on when it comes to God?

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

The Anniversary of Hiroshima: John Paul II and Fulton Sheen on the Bomb and Conversion | Dr. R. Jared Staudt | CWR

Some reflections from two spiritual giants of the 20th century on the bombing of Hiroshima and the new, deadly era it ushered in

Today is the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. This is not simply an historical anniversary, but a continuing call to conversion. The reflections of St. John Paul II and Ven. Fulton Sheen will show how the use of atomic weapons is still a pressing moral issue, not only in terms of warfare, but in terms of broader cultural changes.

St. John Paul II on Hiroshima

St. John Paul II made the following remarks during his visit to Hiroshima on February 25, 1981:

Two cities will forever have their names linked together, two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as the only cities in the world that have had the ill fortune to be a reminder that man is capable of destruction beyond belief. Their names will forever stand out as the names of the only cities in our time that have been singled out as a warning to future generations that war can destroy human efforts to build a world of peace.

John Paul continued: “To remember Hiroshima is to abhor nuclear war.”

Going further, he stated to Japan’s ambassador to the Holy See on September 11, 1999: “The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a message to all our contemporaries, inviting all the earth’s peoples to learn the lessons of history and to work for peace with ever greater determination. Indeed, they remind our contemporaries of all the crimes committed during the Second World War against civilian populations, crimes and acts of true genocide.”

the haunting memory of the atomic explosions which struck first Hiroshima and then Nagasaki in August 1945. … Fifty years after that tragic conflict, which ended some months later also in the Pacific with the terrible events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and with the subsequent surrender of Japan, it appears ever more clearly as “a self-destruction of mankind” (Centessiumus Annus, 18). War is in fact, if we look at it clearly, as much a tragedy for the victors as for the vanquished.

John Paul makes clear that we have not yet dealt with all the effects of these bombs—bombs which have inflicted our country as well as Japan.

Ven. Fulton Sheen on the moral effects of the bomb

Ven. Fulton Sheen cuts right to the heart of these effects, ironically when talking to school students about sex.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Legitimate science can never assert that Adam and Eve are impossible. It might claim that they are improbable, but never impossible. God’s omnipotence can always make short work of long odds.

Is the Genesis story of a literal Adam and Eve a tale that is no longer rationally defensible in the first half of our 21st century? 1

Do the findings of contemporary science exclude Catholic belief in a literal Adam and Eve?

What is the actual teaching of the Catholic Magisterium on this subject today?

While the texts of Genesis begin by referring to “man” in Genesis 1:26, by Genesis 5:3, we are told that Adam begot his son, Seth. Since generic “man” cannot generate an individual son, this latter text clearly refers to an actual individual man named Adam. 2

Informed Catholics know that Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical, Humani generis, insisted upon an actual Adam and Eve, and warned the faithful against embracing the conjectural opinion of polygenism, “which maintains that, either, after Adam, there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him, as from the first parent of all, or, that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” 3 That same encyclical clearly stated that if scientific opinions “are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can, in no way, be admitted.” 4

Still, Humani generis was promulgated more than half a century ago. In light of scientific views emerging since that time, particularly claims made on behalf of paleoanthropology and genetics, many academics—including priests who deal with evolutionary thought—now consider that belief in a literal Adam and Eve to be a form of archaic mythology.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The narrative of a supposed antagonism between the Church and science often relies on errors of omission.

Several people have asked me questions about the accuracy of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s portrayal of the Catholic Church in the recent series Cosmos, which is airing on FOX. There is an important adage at the foundation of logic: “There are far more errors of omission than commission.” Regrettably Tyson’s presentation of the Catholic Church—and religion in general—in opposition to science presents serious errors of omission, so much so as to be incredibly misleading. I will attempt here to fill in a few of the many intellectual gaps in that oversimplified and lacking account.

The natural sciences, and philosophical reflection upon them, have been an integral part of the Catholic intellectual tradition since the time of the Copernican revolution. Indeed, Catholic priests and clerics played a central role in the development of natural science. For example, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), the originator of the heliocentric universe and its mathematical justification, was a minor Catholic cleric.[1] Nicolas Steno (1638-1686), a Catholic Danish bishop, is acknowledged to be one of the founders of modern stratigraphy and geology.[2] The Augustinian monk and abbot Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) is recognized as the founder of modern genetics.[3] Msgr. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and colleague of Albert Einstein, is acknowledged to be the founder of contemporary cosmology through his discovery of the Big Bang Theory in 1927.[4] There are many other Catholic clerics who were integrally involved in the foundation and development of the natural sciences.[5]

Some have contended that the Catholic Church manifested an “antiscientific attitude” during the controversies of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei. But those controversies were not about the veracity of scientific method or its seeming heliocentric conclusion.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Seth MacFarlane, well known atheist and cartoonist, is the executive producer of the remake of “Cosmos,” which recently made its national debut. The first episode featured, along with the science, an animated feature dealing with the sixteenth century Dominican friar Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake by Church officials. A brooding statue of Bruno stands today in the Campo de’ Fiori in Rome on the very spot where the unfortunate friar was put to death. In MacFarlane’s cartoon, Bruno is portrayed as a hero of modern science, and church officials are, without exception, depicted as wild-eyed fanatics and unthinking dogmatists.

As I watched this piece, all I could think was…here we go again. Avatars of the modern ideology feel obligated to tell their great foundation myth over and over, and central to that narrative is that both the physical sciences and liberal political arrangements emerged only after a long twilight struggle against the reactionary forces of religion, especially the Catholic religion. Like the effigies brought out to be burned on Guy Fawkes Day, the bugbear of intolerant and violent Catholicism has to be exposed to ridicule on a regular basis.

I will leave to the side for the moment the issue of liberal politics’ relation to religion, but I feel obliged, once more, to expose the dangerous silliness of the view that Catholicism and the modern sciences are implacable foes.

Friday, January 31, 2014

Each of these lies, on examination, denies or violates a principle of reason or a fact of science

A culture is a complex composition of the manners, rites, language, laws, ideas, and customs of a people. These sources describe what a given people hold to be true, or at least valid. How they act to one another, how they build things, how and what they punish and reward, how they think of birth and death—all these make up the outlines of a given culture.

Some thinkers want to say that truth and falsity are relative to a culture (multi-culturalism). Whatever the culture does or holds becomes its own absolute in that domain. Any outside revelation or philosophy must accommodate itself to the culture, not vice versa. No such thing as a natural law or universal philosophy, whereby one might judge the content of a culture, is acknowledged.

Catholicism has long held that its essential revelation is directed to all “cultures.” Whatever is good can be accepted. If anything is found that is alien to revelation, it would need to be modified in light of universal truths. The supposed “neutrality” or autonomy of any culture, however, makes it almost impossible to judge real differences between good and evil, truth and falsity. If such differences do not objectively exist as the same for all cultures, it does not make much difference what we hold or what culture we belong to. In effect, they are all—Western, Muslim, Chinese, Hindu, Byzantine, Japanese, African, Latino, modern, ancient—meaningless.

For those who hold universal principles of reason and revelation, current Western culture, in which the American polity participates, is, in many fundamental things, based on lies. The devil, interestingly enough, is said to be the “father of lies.” This attribution indicates that the devil bases his own life on the lie of his own self-worth. It also means that he can convince human beings—who can imitate him—that the lies they live by are “true.” They are not to be challenged or repented. This “kingdom of lies” is not divided within itself. One lie follows from another. All converge to deny what man and creation are about.

What are these “lies” on which our present culture is based? Each one of them, on examination, denies or violates a principle of reason or a fact of science. But they are all strenuously adhered to as “truth” because they allow us to do what we want. They enable us to avoid responsibilities for our chosen actions. We insist that they are our “rights,” our “privileges,” or our “liberties.”

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

An interview with Jennifer Lahl, founder and president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture

“Egg or sperm donors don’t help other people have children, they help other people have their children,” says Jennifer Lahl, founder and president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

Lahl spoke with Catholic World Report about her work to assist the most defenseless affected by the rapidly changing and largely unregulated world of biotechnology.

The CBC has produced three original, award-winning documentary films: Anonymous Father’s Day (2011), about children of sperm donors who long to know more about their biological fathers; Eggsploitation (2010), which uncovers the serious risks associated with human egg donation; and Lines That Divide (2009), focusing upon the stem-cell research debate.

CWR: Your work at the Center for Bioethics and Culture tries to help the most vulnerable affected by biotechnology. Other than, say, “spare embryos” from IVF, who else are you looking to assist?

Lahl: Our work focuses on end-of-life issues, like euthanasia, and “making life” issues via assisted reproductive technologies. The most vulnerable we seek to give a voice to are those facing terminal illness, disabilities, [the] suffering (those society says have a life not worth living), and also the stakeholders in assisted reproductive technology (ART), e.g., egg donors, surrogate mothers, and the children created by these technologies.

Of course, we do advocate against sperm donation too, and it may be a stretch to say a sperm donor is vulnerable, but we seek to educate them on the realities of donor conception. I often say to egg donors (and it could be said of sperm donation), you didn’t help a woman (or a couple or man) have a baby, you helped her have your baby.

CWR: The intense emotional desire to be a parent is the main motivation behind surrogacy and technologies like IVF. Your work, however, especially your films, focuses on different sets of emotions beyond those of potential parents. Tell us about those.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Honest science and reason, seasoned
with a healthy does of humility, are never adversaries to faith.

The Resurrection stories are replete
with people failing to recognize Jesus until he says or does
something evocative, puzzling even serious Christians. Skeptics use
these appearances to suggest that Resurrection witnesses succumbed to
a kind of transference, seeming to recognize Jesus in one of his
followers, or succumbed to a wish-fulfilling delusion.

Christians counter that if skeptics
were correct, why would the chroniclers of the Gospels have admitted
that these Resurrection witnesses did not immediately recognize the
risen Christ? Why not sanitize the Resurrection stories to delete
this inconvenient fact?

Understanding the Resurrection is
beyond human comprehension, and Christians believe that getting their
minds around it completely is of little importance in relation to
conforming themselves entirely to Christ. Still, is there a way, a
coherent explanation if you will, that might give us some insight,
however feeble, into how a person could be unrecognizable while
remaining the same person, how a person could move through locked
doors, how a person could be transported instantaneously from place
to place?

Newtonian physics made no allowances
for a Resurrection event in which person might move at will across
time and space, in which he might – while remaining substantial –
pass through closed doors, in which he might be the same person who
multiplied the loaves and changed water into wine, while not being
immediately recognizable to his closest disciples. Such a Jesus was
ghostly or allegorical from the perspective of Newtonian science.

A clue to an explanation for how these
appearances might be reconciled with science and reason can be found
in the 1884 book, Flatland: a Romance of Many Dimensions, by
the mathematician and theologian, Edwin A. Abbott, who uses the
example of “flat” creatures that live in only two dimensions
(length and width) on a plane, or on the surface of a sheet of paper,
for example.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Catholics, the Environment, and a “Culture of Waste” | J. J. Ziegler | Catholic World Report

Recent popes have highlighted the necessity of caring for the environment—but how does what they say differ from secular environmentalism?

On June 5, Pope Francis devoted his
Wednesday general audience to the environment. Decrying the “culture of
waste,” he linked disrespect for the environment to disrespect for human life:

This “culture of waste” tends to become a
common mentality that infects everyone. Human life, the person, are no longer
seen as a primary value to be respected and safeguarded, especially if they are
poor or disabled, if they are not yet useful—like the unborn child—or are no
longer of any use—like the elderly person.

Pope Francis’s concern about the environment is not novel:
Venerable Paul VI reflected on the topic in Octogesima
Adveniens(no. 21),his 1971
apostolic letter on the 80th anniversary of Pope Leo’s XIII’s landmark social
encyclical Rerum Novarum.

Early in his pontificate, in his 1979 apostolic letter Inter Sanctos, Blessed John Paul II
proclaimed St. Francis of Assisi the heavenly patron of those who promote
ecology. At various points in his pontificate, John Paul directed his attention
to ecological concerns, most significantly in his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis(nos. 26, 34), his 1990 Message
for the World Day of Peace, and his 1991 encyclical Centesimus
Annus(nos. 37-40), in which he linked the environment to a “human
ecology” whose “first and fundamental structure” is “the family founded on
marriage” (no. 39).

It was Pope Benedict, however, who earned the nickname “the
green pope,” in part because of the installation of solar panels above some
Vatican buildings and in part because of the Vatican’s attempt, which
proved ill-fated, to become the world’s first carbon-neutral nation.

concern and commitment for the environment
should be situated within the larger framework of the great challenges now
facing mankind. If we wish to build true peace, how can we separate, or even
set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human
life, including the life of the unborn? It is in man’s respect for himself that
his sense of responsibility for creation is shown.

“Today, more than ever, it appears clear to us that respect
for the environment cannot fail to recognize the value and inviolability of the
human person in every phase of life and in every condition,” he likewise said in
a 2011 address. “Respect for the human being and respect for nature are one
and the same, but they will both be able to develop and to reach their full
dimension if we respect the Creator and his creature in the human being and in
nature.”

Friday, August 02, 2013

Catholic teaching on surrogacy is receiving reinforcement from current research.

Mothers have long believed,
cultures have long taught, and research has repeatedly confirmed that an
emotional network links pregnant moms to their babies. If mom is happy, the preborn
baby is content. When mom is anxious, the prenate shows signs of stress. What’s
more, post-birth, this bio-emotional nexus—the gestational link—continues to yoke
mothers to their offspring throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

It’s important, then, to
investigate what happens when an enterprise like surrogacy sunders the
gestational link. For the first time, a 2013 study suggests surrogate children experience
greater adjustment difficulties and levels of stress than same-aged children
born by gamete donation. [1] In other words, severing the gestational link can be even more devastating for
surrogate children than splitting the genetic link can be for children produced
by donor egg and/or sperm.

This report turns to Christian
anthropology and prenatal research to connect the dots of the maladaptation of the
surrogate child to the troubling exploitation that impacts all surrogacy
stakeholders. Predictably, the injustices—the flotsam and jetsam of the
surrogacy industry—don’t just harm the child,[2] they ripple out over the surrogate mother, the commissioning parents, and all
of society.

The surrogacy explosion

Some women cannot get
pregnant. They’re either born without a uterus, or have a non-functioning
uterus, or have been repeatedly unsuccessful at gestating an in-vitro-fertilized
(IVF) baby. Many of these sterile women, invoking the principle of patient
autonomy, deem a contractual agreement with a surrogate carrier as their only alternative,
other than adoption.[3]

These are common enough expressions, and we know
their meaning. They indicate movement, purpose, resolution. We’ve
uttered them many times, with anticipation, or with anxiety.

Jesus, we hear in today’s Gospel
reading, was “on the way.” The days for his “being taken up”
had been fulfilled, and so “he resolutely determined to journey to
Jerusalem.” A more direct translation is that “he hardened his
face to go”. This language is meant to evoke connections with the
prophets, especially Ezekiel: “Son of man, set your face toward
Jerusalem and preach against the sanctuaries; prophesy against the
land of Israel…” (Ezek. 21:2; RSVCE). Jesus sent messengers
ahead, reminiscent of God sending messengers before Moses and the
people (Ex. 23:20).

The journey to Jerusalem was, in other
words, a prophetic mission and the concrete realization of a new
Exodus—not from Egypt, but from sin, death, and separation from
God. Jesus was resolute and unflinching in this decision, by which
“he indicated that he was going up to Jerusalem prepared to die
there” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 557). Some
have suggested or insisted that Jesus, in going to Jerusalem, did not
really know of his approaching death, but was acting with naïve
optimism or blind faith.

However, as we heard last week, Jesus
told his disciples that he would suffer, be rejected by the religious
leaders, killed, and raised on the third day (Lk. 9:22). What the
prophets of the Old Testament sometimes saw in startling glimpses,
Jesus saw with calm clarity: his mission was to liberate mankind from
the slavery of sin and the curse of death by being the sinless,
sacrificial Lamb of God. And as the Holy One journeyed to the holy
city, he encountered rejection, opposition, confusion, and even
fervent promises—the same reactions he still encounters today.

The Samaritans, whose harbored strong
hostility toward the Jews, did not welcome him, apparently because he
journeyed to Jerusalem and not Mount Gerizim, the site of their
temple (cf. Jn. 4:20). Jesus did not fit their concept of a prophet
or messiah, and so they rejected him. Of course, the Pharisees and
scribes also rejected him for the same reason, and the similarities
(and irony) of this fact was likely not lost on St. Luke’s
first-century readers.

Jesus then encountered three men who
got a taste (and give us a clear picture) of the demands of
discipleship. It is easy to say to Jesus, “I will follow you
wherever you go,” but keeping such promises is far more daunting
than making them. Another asked to be given time to first bury his
father; a third wished to first say goodbye to his family.

Was Jesus insensitive to familial
responsibilities and hardships? No, said St. Basil the Great, but “a
person who wishes to become the Lord’s disciple must repudiate a
human obligation, however honorable it may appear, if it slows us
ever so slightly in giving the wholehearted obedience we owe to God.”
Jesus recognized that these men, well intentioned and fervent as they
may have been, were like those who “receive the word with joy, but
they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time
of trial” (Lk. 8:13).

As St. Frances de Sales wrote, in
Treatise on the Love of God, “…we receive the grace of God
in vain, when we receive it at the gate of our heart, and not within
the consent of our heart; for so we receive it without receiving it,
that is, we receive it without fruit, since it is nothing to feel the
inspiration without consenting unto it.” Contrast that with the
newly selected prophet, Elisha. Called by God, he asked permission to
say farewell to his family. Yet, given permission to do so by Elijah, Elisha decided instead to literally
sacrifice his old life, recognizing that following God requires
going all the way.

His actions said, “I’m on the way.”
What do our actions say?

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the June 27, 2010, issue of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Friday, February 22, 2013

The moral implications of the world’s energy problem make the Church’s engagement on the subject indispensable.

When a coalition of United States
scientists issued the most recent draft of its National Climate Assessment, it
captured the attention of environmental regulators like me. Two weeks later,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency briefed hundreds of
researchers and policy-makers about findings from more than two dozen climate
indicators.

Both the National Climate Assessment and EPA’s indicators
provide more than 1,000 pages of science and significant online resources that
show trends (mostly negative, but some positive) that align with anthropogenic
climate-change models—trends in increasing temperatures; drought in some places
while, in others, wetter, stronger, and more frequent storms; changes in
agricultural yields; sea-level rise, and other disruptions to the status quo.

My professional concerns relate
to the impact of storms and rising sea levels on water-pollution control
infrastructure. As a Catholic, however, these concerns are illuminated by my
faith. This influences my reaction to mounting evidence and professional
observations of the impacts of a changing world—and this makes me wonder what
we as believers can do about it.

Certainly, the topic of
human-induced climate change brings debate. This is especially true among my
Catholic brothers and sisters who view the topic as a Trojan horse that hides
radical left-wing agendas (which it sometimes can). But given pontifical
statements on the importance of ecology and the seriousness with which organs
in the Church—like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences—consider the subject,
there is a growing responsibility for the faithful to look closely at what
science is showing, as well as to consider the moral implications of what’s
happening, who it’s happening to, and the causes thereof.

When governments and
environmental advocates consider climate change, they do so in one of two ways:
adaptation (which means learning how to live with whatever happens) and
mitigation (which seeks to reduce the causes of what’s changing). While these
categories are ultimately linked, in practice they are quite separate.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

From Sister Burns, who writes reviews and much more on her blog, Hell Burns:

Got atheists? Atheist friends or family, that is? The
“stellar” new DVD “Cosmic Origins” might help! Today’s top scientists (many
award-winning) weigh in on the mysterious origins of our universe (and a
possible beyond). Old and new cosmological theories are presented, leading up to
the possibility of an “intelligent Designer.” But the film—being mostly a
scientific exploration/explanation--doesn’t harp on “intelligent design,”
which, as Cardinal George tells us, belongs more to the realm of philosophy rather
than either science or religion. Physics is juxtaposed with a brief
consideration of metaphysics. One does not feel bamboozled or railroaded by a
sudden “attack” of “religious thought” at the end, where Jesuit priest Robert
Spitzer (Magis Institute for Faith & Reason) introduces the concept of a harmonious
relationship between science and belief.

The tone is one of informative scientific updating (for the
layperson, but without talking down to us). Definitely not an “apologetics”
tone.

The format is diverse: footage of the universe, graphics,
interviews, more than one live host, “man-in-the-street” opinions, etc. “Cosmic
Origins” never lags. There is a conspicuous presence of young adults,
especially in the personalized but contrived-looking “man-in-the-street” scenes.
Atheism and “unaffiliated” are the
fastest growing “religions” among young adults, and the “New Atheism” movement
is eagerly proselytizing these young minds and hearts.

Carl Sagan wanted the average person to be informed about
science and was frustrated by what he deemed Americans’ “celebration of
ignorance.” Famous “new atheist,” Richard Dawkins, held the position of
Oxford’s “Professor of Public Understanding of Science” from 1995 to 2008.
However, scientists need to understand that not everyone is interested in
understanding how things work or even the scientific explanation of the origins
of the universe. And it can be argued that the average person does not even
need to know these things to flourish. Also, we all have our own specialties.
Does Dawkins know what a mechanic knows? Can he fix his own car? Sometimes,
scientists have a kind of hubris, demanding that everyone bow down to their
discipline/field as the most important thing on earth.

The universal longing for love, meaning, fulfillment,
self-understanding, connection with others, etc., trumps the desire for and
acquisition of practical/functional knowledge every time. But this is still not
an excuse to be a willful ignoramus. At least be curious about God’s astounding
Creation, OK, believers? This might be the first bridge towards reaching
atheistic scientists and their followers who only have science (many eschew
philosophy along with theology).

Monday, July 16, 2012

When it comes to protecting the right to life of the most vulnerable human being in our midst, the infant in the womb, there is no “middle ground” or “common ground” to be found. Human dignity must be protected and upheld.

Imagine for a moment that you are a physician or a nurse in a fairly typical operating room. Lying on the operating table before you is a young woman who is eighteen weeks pregnant. You are also eighteen weeks pregnant and will, in a matter of months, welcome the child within your womb into the world. Turning to your patient, you dutifully begin the surgery that has been scheduled—an abortion.

Apparently, for at least one physician, this is no mere thought experiment. Driven by “feminist pro-choice” ideology and desensitized by years of performing such abortions, this is the experience of a pregnant abortionist who writes for a popular pro-abortion blog. She describes the graphic and shocking details of her experience in the following words:

I realized that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing the procedure as usual…I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick—a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus…There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely…It was an overwhelming feeling—a brutally visceral response—heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics…It was one of the more raw moments in my life.

This disturbing “raw moment” is disheartening and troubling, to say the least. Her account reveals the gruesome reality of what is happening in clinics throughout the world. Every ounce of this doctor’s body (and her baby’s body) reeled at what she was doing and vociferated that her actions were evil.

No euphemism made in reference to abortion can completely hide the gruesome reality of the choice that is made when a physician or mother chooses abortion. This is not “preventative health,” “choice,” “women’s rights,” “reproductive medicine,” or “health care.” It is one thing—murder—the killing of an innocent, vulnerable, and dependent human being. The experience of this physician has depicted in the “rawest” of terms the scientific fact that, along each of the developmental stages (zygotic, embryonic, and fetal), that which is in the womb is a human being. But somehow, the truth has not hindered her from continuing her gruesome task. She writes, “Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.”

“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 159.

Portsmouth, RI —Can faith exist in a world where science is demonstrating ever more details of creation and the evolution of human life? Is there a place for science among those who believe that the Book of Genesis is God’s inspired revelation?

Such questions anchored “Modern Science/Ancient Faith,” a conference sponsored by the Benedictine-run Portsmouth Institute, housed in Rhode Island’s Portsmouth Abbey School, on June 22-24. The event brought together some ninety scientists, theologians, philosophers, clergy, lay faithful, and skeptics—or some mix of the above—to explore the dialogue between the natural sciences and Christianity.

While few participants expressed difficulties with the coexistence of faith and reason, the how of this coexistence wasn’t always in agreement. Some demanded a decidedly scientific approach to questions of beginnings. Others championed a more literal understanding of Genesis. This made for polite but fiery discussions that began in the early summer’s heat of the Abbey’s grounds and now continue online.

After opening with Adoration and the Rosary, the first talk was a review of the Galileo affair by Rev. Dom Paschal Scotti, O.S.B. His presentation set an amicable tone for the conference by demonstrating Christianity’s affinity for the natural sciences. The priest made clear that the driving issue at play in Galileo’s run-in with the Church was not an inherent fear of science. Rather, most Catholic theologians and scientists working with Galileo fought with the astronomer to keep scientific observations in their proper arena.

And as in the modern debates about issues such as evolution or climate change, what further inflamed the Galileo saga were the nuances of human sin, politics, and egos. According to Fr. Paschal, relations between Galileo and the Church were complicated by issues such as tensions between the Dominican and Jesuit orders; secular pressures on Pope Urban VIII; Galileo’s often aggressive approach and sometimes sarcastic writings; and the effects of Protestantism’s demands for sola scriptura.

Fr. Paschal noted that, human failings notwithstanding, an incarnational faith by its nature intersects with the natural world and, thus, the sciences—and this may explain why Christianity was the fertile ground from which the natural sciences could take root.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

“Where men situate themselves in the place of God, they can only find themselves struggling one against the other. Where, on the other hand, they place themselves in the truth of the Lord, they open themselves to the action of His Spirit which sustains and unifies them”

The Pentecost Mass in St. Peter’s was accompanied by the choir of the Academy of Saint Cecelia and its youth orchestra. In his homily, the Holy Father broached one of the most difficult of all Christian teachings: How is it possible, as we are commanded, to love everyone whereas we have neither the time, nor the opportunity, nor even the desire to do so? The pope wants to reflect on an aspect of Pentecost that remains true.

Pentecost is the feast of the union of the Church, of the communion of all humanity with one another. Aristotle had insisted that the more friends we have, the fewer good friends we have. Yet, Christianity came along, without necessarily denying Aristotle’s point, to tell us that we should go out to everyone. We are also warned about friends who can corrupt us. We have to choose carefully. Plato’s idea of friends being friends with everyone needs careful distinctions, as Aristotle also said.

Benedict points out how modern means of communication seem to bring us closer together no matter where we are in the world. Yet, people choose to remain in their own “I”. Is there a place for a genuine “we”? We can learn something from the Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel, which account seems directly implied when, on Pentecost morning, the Apostles through the gift the Holy Ghost began to speak in different tongues. Benedict recalls that the men at the time of Babel wanted to challenge God with a tower what would do what only God could do. In order to pursue their construction, they needed to communicate with each other.

God’s response to this defiance was to give them all different languages so they could not understand each other. Obviously, the diversity of languages still seems both a curse and a blessing. It seems that all men should be able to understand each other. Yet, the diversity of languages is not only a thing of beauty, but also allows us to live in smaller groups. The pope tells us that Pentecost is the “feast of the union, comprehension, and communion of all men.”

We human beings have a common origin and destiny even when we do not understand each other’s language. Yet, it seems that the more we can communicate across the world in a few seconds, the less we understand about each other. People prefer to remain isolated in themselves. The essential element of a human being, however, is the capacity “to agree, to understand and to act together.” We cannot be content with simple otherness that denies a common nature and origin.

II.

This biblical story of the Tower refers to a constant truth that recurs “throughout history.” With the progress of science and technology, we realize we can “dominate the forces of nature, to manipulate the elements, to reproduce living things, almost to the point of manufacturing humans themselves.” If we can do such extraordinary things, why do we need “to pray to God?” Benedict rhetorically asks. “We can construct any city that we want.” Yet, we fail to see that we are in fact simply “repeating” the account of Babel. We have made many devices whereby we can transmit words and sights. Yet have we increased or decreased our capacity to “understand” one another?

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

A review of Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing.

Why is it so important for believers to affirm that in creating all that is God does not work with or use anything at all—nothing, that is, other than his own omnipotence? When the doctrine of creation out-of-nothing was being formulated in the early Church, it seemed obvious to the Church Fathers that the opening of Genesis stood out in stark contrast to the prevailing philosophical and scientific view that the universe is eternal. A Platonic Demiurge, for example, or an Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, would work with already existing stuff to bring order and/or motion to the world. Such a god would not be the complete cause of all that is, would not be the sovereign Lord of the universe. To emphasize that God, revealed in the Bible, was such a complete cause of existence meant that creation had to be “out of nothing.” What this meant was that God did not use anything at all—no pre-existent matter, no primal chaos—in his creative act.

For the Church Fathers, creation out-of-nothing also countered any temptation to think that matter was evil and not created by God. All that is comes from God, and all that is, is good. There are not, as the Manicheans thought, two first principles, one supremely good, the other supremely evil. Systematic reflection in the Christian tradition (and in Jewish and Muslim traditions as well) on what it means for God to create involved difficult questions about the intelligibility of something’s coming from nothing, given the fundamental premise that it is not possible to get something from nothing. It also involved discussions about the relationship between a created universe, generally identified as one that is temporally finite (i.e., with a beginning), and the well-established scientific view that the universe is eternal. It would not be until the 13th century that the doctrine of creation would find its fullest expression (and its most able defender) in Thomas Aquinas.[1]

For Thomas, God’s act of creating the universe is not primarily some distant event. Creation is the on-going, complete causing of all that is. To be created means to have a relationship of complete dependency, of everything that one is, upon God as cause.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Mary Eberstadt is my friend, but I’ll risk charges of special pleading and self-plagiarism by quoting my endorsement on the dust jacket of her new book, Adam and Eve after the Pill (Ignatius Press): “Mary Eberstadt is our premier analyst of American cultural foibles and follies, with a keen eye for oddities that illuminate just how strange the country’s moral culture has become.” That strangeness is on full display in the ongoing controversy over the HHS-“contraceptive mandate”—an exercise in raw governmental coercion depicted by much of the mainstream media (and, alas, by too many Catholics on the port side of the barque of Peter) as a battle between Enlightened Sexual Liberation and The Antediluvian Catholic Church. Anyone who thinks of this battle in those terms should spend a few evenings reading Adam and Eve after the Pill.

As the talismanic year 2000 approached, and like virtually every other talking head and scribe in the world, I was asked what I thought the history-changing scientific discoveries of the 20th-century had been. And like the rest of the commentariat, I answered, “splitting the atom (which unleashed atomic energy for good or ill) and unraveling the DNA double-helix (which launched the new genetics and the new biotechnology).” Today, after a decade of pondering why the West is committing slow-motion demographic suicide through self-induced infertility, I would add a third answer: the invention of the oral contraceptive, “the Pill.”

With insight, verve and compassion, Adam and Eve after the Pill explores the results of what Mary Eberstadt bluntly describes as the “optional and intentional sterility in women” the Pill has made possible for three generations.